History Shows Newt Speaks Bombastically But Carries a Tiny Stick
Fellow right-wingers: Is our objective to taunt Obama by accusing him of "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior," of being "authentically dishonest" and a "wonderful con" -- and then lose the election -- or is it to defeat Obama, repeal Obamacare, secure the borders, enforce e-verify, reform entitlement programs, reduce the size of government and save the country?
If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich -- like recent favorite Donald Trump -- is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt's not your guy.
Gingrich makes plenty of bombastic statements, but these never seem to translate into actual policy changes.
After becoming the first Republican speaker of the House in nearly half a century, for example, Newt promptly proposed orphanages and janitorial jobs for children on welfare.
It was true that welfare had destroyed generations of families shorn of the work ethic and led to soaring illegitimacy rates, child abuse and neglect. Maybe orphanages and child labor would have been better.
But we didn't get any orphanages. We didn't get jobs for children in families where no one works.
What we got was the cartoonish image of Republicans as hard-hearted brutes who hated poor kids.
Ronald Reagan was also accused of waging a war on the poor. But that was on account of his implementing historic tax cuts that produced not only record revenues for the government, but decades of prosperity for the entire nation.
With Newt, you get all the heat, blowback and acrimony, but you don't get the policy changes.
To the contrary, his pointless bloviating about orphanages and child janitors harmed the chances for welfare reform, despite the fact that the American people, the Republican Congress and the Democratic president (publicly, at least), supported it.
Indeed, when it came time to make vital changes to welfare policy, such as work requirements and anti-illegitimacy provisions, Gingrich tried to scuttle them. He denounced such provisions -- the very heart of welfare reform -- as, yes, "social engineering of the right" (e.g., Republican Governors Conference, Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 22, 1994).
The guy who wanted orphanages for children on welfare suddenly called work requirements for adults on welfare right-wing "social engineering."
Gingrich went on to lose almost every negotiation with Bill Clinton -- and that was with solid Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. His repeated capitulation to Clinton led former Vice President Dan Quayle to remark that the Republican "Contract With America" had become the "Contract With Clinton." (Not to be confused with Newt's book, "Contract With the Earth.")
Perfectly good policies are constantly being undermined by Newt's crazy statements -- such as his explanation that women couldn't be in combat because they get infections, whereas men "are basically little piglets," who are "biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."
Hunt giraffes?
With Gingrich we get the worse of all worlds. He talks abrasively -- offending moderates and galvanizing liberals -- but then carries a teeny, tiny stick.
We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes. Even when Gingrich doesn't completely back off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric undermines the ability of Republicans to get anything done.
By the time of the 1996 Republican National Convention, Gingrich was so widely reviled that the Democrats' main campaign strategy against all Republican candidates for office was to link them with Gingrich.
Gingrich was forced into a minor speaking role at the convention, which he used to promote ... beach volleyball.
That's right, Republicans were trying to defeat Clinton and Newt was talking about beach volleyball, which is apparently the essence of freedom -- as well as evidence of Newt's cuddly side!
(During the House ethics investigation of Gingrich, he produced notes in which he reminds himself to "allow expression of warm/smiling/softer side.")
After Gingrich had been speaker for a brief two years, the Republican House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him $300,000 for ethics violations.
(Sen. Bob Dole loaned Gingrich the money in what was called the first instance of an airbag being saved by a person.)
It's true that Newt has had some good ideas -- but also boatloads of bad ones, such as his support for experimentation on human embryos, cap and trade, policies to combat imaginary man-made global warming, an individual health insurance mandate, Dede Scozzafava (Romney supported the tea party candidate), amnesty for illegal aliens, Al Gore's bill to establish an "Office of Critical Trends Analysis" to prepare government reports on "alternative futures" (co-sponsored by Gingrich), and thinking he could get away with taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac without anyone noticing.
During the ethics investigation, the committee also found among Newt's personal papers a sketch of himself as a stick figure at the center of the universe.
On one page, Newt called himself: "definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."
This is not a small-government conservative talking. It is not a conservative at all.
- Ann Coulter's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Hey, Ann
Submitted by ThisnThat on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 10:23pm.
Why don't you just write for the DNC, and supply their ammunition? You are not in control of the election next year. This means that you don't get to pick your candidate. The candidate field has been determined, and one of the remaining picks is going to be the GOP nominee. It might be Newt.
And if it is Newt, people like you and Ron Paul will have loaded up the dims demagoguery in support of o'bama's re-election. And I'm surprised you can't see that, and can't control your hateful rhetoric accordingly. Use what few brains you have to get yourself under control, and start supporting what we -- the real voters -- are going to select. Instead of destroying the potential candidate in a fit of ideological "he ain't no good" speech.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Coulter loves to bring up
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 11:46pm.
Coulter loves to bring up Gingrich's past statements from 15-16 years ago, or as she herself would probably point out, if it were someone else doing it, in the last century! At the same time, she claims that Mitt Romney is the most conservative Republican candidate, in spite of his saying he wasn't running on Republican values as recently as 2002, which is at least in the current century and decade.
I agree with you about her providing a treasure trove of soundbites for the DNC: Listen to what conservative spitfire Ann Coulter had to say about Gingrich....
Personally
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 11:49pm.
I think the only reason for Newt's surge is the vicarious thrill we all received when he b$tch slapped liberal press members at the debates and Piers Morgan on his show.
Can't be his policies.
Let's just look at this practically shall we?
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:56am.
Who are the candidates?
Bachmann - The most Conservative, but is a House Republican and isn't the best debater in the world.
Perry - A Conservative but a bungler. He is akin to a McCain or a GW Bush.
Santorum - Another Conservative but folks don't like his stance on gays no matter how rational and legitimate it is.
These are the ONLY THREE Conservatives in the race, but they are the lowest in the polls and are relatively unknown.
Paul - He is a fanatic and his policies are very similar to Obama's in many ways in regard to foreign policy issues - abandon our allies and allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. If you want a libertarian President then you may also find the OWS protesters equally capable, as any one of the anarchists represented in THAT movement share many of the same beliefs as Paul.
Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
Romney - Romney is the quintessential politician who loves to tell people what they want to hear when they want to hear it, yet he is a liberal to the core and FAR from being a Conservative, a title humorously bestowed upon him by none other than Ms. Ann Coulter.
The Mitt Romney Deception Report
http://massresistance.org/romney/
Gingrich - He's the only one left. He is articulate. Intelligent. (Something missing in Conservative circles these days) Gutsy. Brutally honest (something I thought Coulter admired in Chris Christie). Is the only one who has actually balanced a federal budget and amusingly ticked off the entire RINO establishment while doing it. And he is the only one who can send Obama crying back to Chicago. And the radical left and RINO establishment knows it. (RINOS are still licking their wounds from having their feelings hurt by Gingrich back in the 90's. Suck it up RINOS and get a backbone!)
His faults are that his character is questionable and his policy ideas, though attractive, may not be all too realistic. But at least he HAS IDEAS! I can honestly say that not every idea I've had in my life has come to fruition either -- sue me.
So, what are we left with?
Candidates who are Conservative but unelectable, a fanatic or a not-so ideal candidate who is good enough.
There's one more item most people are simply overlooking -- the VP position!
Could a Gingrich/Santorum or a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket make Gingrich more attractive? Is Santorum's stance on counterfeit marriage too much of a lightning rod for someone who already has too much "gigawattage" surrounding his name? Is Bachmann under-qualified? Who a candidate's running mate winds up being may ease the stress levels circulating throughout the Conservative airwaves these days.
Of course, it didn't work well for McCain/Palin, but McCain was a dolt and no one even knew who Palin was!
We'll see....surely any of these (minus Paul) is better than Obama as President, but they have to be capable of BEATING HIM first. Let's not put the cart before the horse here.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Ron Paul is worse than a disastor
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:49am.
Paul is a hateful little man. Up here in NH, the commercials are constant. A few days ago, a commercial was aired that did nothing but attack Gingrich. In the most violent, degrading way. After the first 5 seconds, I had figured that it was a new DNC attack ad. It wasn't till the end that Paul came on and admitted that it was his.
There wasn't a single thing about Paul in that commercial. It was 60 seconds of attacking Gingrich.
Then yesterday someone on Fox News interviewed Paul and asked him specifically about his attack ads. Paul's disingenuous answer was "It's not an attack ad unless you lie about someone. Everything I say is the truth".
Paul is all about Paul. If he was to get elected, I believe this country would go to hell quicker than o'bama's approach. Because Paul is delusional, IMO. I can't believe people can't see through him.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
I pretty much agree with your analysis
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:39pm.
As conservatives go, Newt is pretty far down the ladder, but the one's above him can't win. I get that.
It doesn't make me like it any better, though. He's a self-described "Realpolitik Wilsonian" and worships at the altar of FDR. As Rush says, there is PLENTY of room to the right of Gingrich for someone to exploit.
Now, let's hear the other side of the story Ann...
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:20am.
"We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes."
Those are huge words coming from you Ann!
Now, on to the exposure of your candidate:
The Mitt Romney Deception Report
http://massresistance.org/romney/
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
who are you?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:01am.
We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes.
What? Her first choice was Christie, a man not known for talking softly.
Ann needs to walk around to the other side of the table and see what we are seeing. She's undercutting her own credibility with people who have been her strongest supporters.
Or maybe she could just read
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:02am.
Or maybe she could just read Michael Reagan's column today and get a refresher on his father's 11th commandment.
Has the right gone mad?
So if I disagree with Newt on policy
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:48pm.
I'm not supposed to say so? He did sit on that couch with pelousy, he has stated he is a "realpolitk Wilonian", he HAS stated that manmade GW is real, he DID call out Paul Ryan's budget plan as "social engineering from the right", and so on.
I couldn't care less about his personal life. It's his public stances that make me nervous.
Not sure why Ann would ding
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:09am.
Not sure why Ann would ding Newt for his support for experimentation on human embryos, cap and trade, policies to combat imaginary man-made global warming, and an individual health insurance mandate, considering Mitt has supported the last three, and supported abortion for many years. If you like Romney, that's fine, but don't be a hypocrite.
Also, you should probably drop the conservative charade. Considering the two guys you prefer most as candidates are northeastern RINOs, I think that ship has probably sailed at this point.
When did Kathleen "Granny" Parker start writing Ann's column?
Submitted by frank14 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:28am.
I want my old conservative Ann back, not this RINO!
It had to happen
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:52pm.
You know something, I used to be a fan of Ann's writings. BUt lately, especially after she's apparently got a crush on Christie who I wouldn't want for president, some of her writings has really turned me off to her. I used to go looking for it, looking forward to it, but now, I don't even want to look at it.
Sorry, Ann, I'm done with ya.
Same thing happened with Peggy Noonan.
-Jon